Facts:

The case revolves around Agapito A. Aquino, who filed a Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Representative for the newly established Second Legislative District of Makati City on March 20, 1995. In his application, he claimed to have resided at 284 Amapola Corner Adalla Streets, Palm Village, Makati, for a period of one year and ten months prior to the elections scheduled for May 8, 1995. On April 24, 1995, Move Makati, a political party, along with Mateo Bedon, the Chairman of the LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP of Barangay Cembo, filed a petition to disqualify Aquino, arguing that he did not meet the residency requirement of one year as mandated by Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. The petition was assigned to the Second Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and was docketed as SPA No. 95-113.

In response to the disqualification petition, Aquino amended his Certificate of Candidacy on April 25, 1995, stating that he had resided in the constituency for ...

Facts:

Filing of the Certificate of Candidacy and Initial Allegations

• On March 20, 1995, petitioner Agapito A. Aquino filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Representative of the newly created Second Legislative District of Makati City. His certificate included his complete residence address (284 Amapola Cor. Adalla St., Palm Village, Makati) and a declaration of eligibility.
• Among the items in his certificate was Item 8, which originally did not clearly show compliance with the required residency period prescribed by the Constitution (i.e. a minimum of one year immediately preceding the election).

Petition to Disqualify and Subsequent Amendments

• On April 24, 1995, Move Makati and Mateo Bedon (among others) filed a petition to disqualify Aquino on the ground that he did not meet the one-year residency requirement under Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
• On April 25, 1995, Aquino filed an amended Certificate of Candidacy, stating that he had resided in the district for one year and thirteen days.

Pre‑Election Proceedings and Hearings

• On May 2, 1995, Aquino filed his Answer, praying for the dismissal of the disqualification petition. A COMELEC hearing was conducted the same day where he presented evidence including:
• His Affidavit dated May 2, 1995
• A lease contract with Leonor Feliciano (dated April 1, 1994)
• Affidavits from Leonor Feliciano and Daniel Galamay (both dated April 28, 1995)
• On May 6, 1995, the COMELEC Second Division issued a Resolution dismissing the disqualification petition and declared Aquino eligible.

Post‑Election Developments

• On May 7, 1995, Move Makati and Mateo Bedon filed a motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC Second Division’s resolution.
• On May 8, 1995, during the congressional elections, Aquino garnered 38,547 votes—more than the rival candidate Agusto Syjuco, who obtained 35,910 votes.
• On May 10, 1995, petitioners filed an Urgent Motion Ad Cautelum to suspend Aquino’s proclamation should he win.
• On May 15, 1995, the COMELEC En Banc issued an Order suspending Aquino’s proclamation pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration.
• On May 16, 1995, Aquino filed his comment/opposition seeking the lifting of the suspension.
• On June 1, 1995, Aquino further filed a motion to submit supplemental memoranda, raising among other issues the question of whether post‑election determination of qualifications would fall exclusively to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).
• On June 2, 1995, the COMELEC En Banc:
• Issued an Order allowing the continued hearing of Aquino’s disqualification case, suspending its ministerial rules temporarily.
• Subsequently, reversed the earlier Second Division Resolution and declared Aquino disqualified for failing to meet the one‑year residency requirement, thus issuing an instruction for the Board of Canvassers to proclaim the winner from among the remaining qualified candidates.

Petition for Certiorari and Raised Errors

• Aquino filed a Petition for Certiorari assailing the orders (May 15 and June 2, 1995) and the resolution of the COMELEC En Banc.
• He raised several errors, contesting:
• The jurisdiction of the COMELEC to rule on qualifications post‑election, arguing that such determination should lie exclusively with the HRET.
• The notion that the COMELEC lost jurisdiction after the election, contending that the winning vote does not automatically vest office if constitutional qualifications are lacking.
• The alleged grave abuse of discretion in suspending his proclamation and directing the proclamation of the next highest vote-getter.
• The evidentiary basis showing that he failed to establish effective domicile in the new district, given his long‑standing domicile of origin in Concepcion, Tarlac, and that his lease arrangement was insufficient to prove a genuine change of residence.
• The claim that enforcing the one‑year residency requirement in a newly created district (with a much shorter existence) is legally impossible or inapplicable.

Issue:

Jurisdiction Over Qualification and Disqualification Matters

• Whether the COMELEC retained jurisdiction to determine the qualifications of a candidate after the elections or whether such jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).
• Whether the post‑election determination of qualifications can include suspending the proclamation of the candidate even when he has received the highest number of votes.

Sufficiency and Evidence of Residency Requirements

• Whether Aquino truly met the constitutional requirement of being a “resident” (interpreted as domicile) in the district for not less than one year immediately preceding the election.
• Whether the evidence – particularly the lease contract versus his established domicile of origin and admission of maintaining additional residences – sufficed to demonstrate a bona fide change of domicile.

Abuse of Discretion and Proclamation of the Winner

• Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by suspending Aquino’s proclamation, particularly in light of the ministerial nature of proclamation once a candidate obtains the highest number of votes.
• Whether it is proper to consider that votes cast for a disqualified candidate should be treated as “stray” and not automatically transferred to a next‑highest vote-getter, therefore barring the latter from being proclaimed as the winner.

Applicability of the One‑Year Residency Requirement in Newly Created Political Districts

• Whether it is legally tenable to enforce the one‑year residency requirement in new political districts that have existed for less than a year, as in the case of the Second Legislative District of Makati.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)